Bharat Rakshak

Singha wrote:Iraq yes but turkey kind of cold now..jn is new messages nna

UlanBatori wrote: Mass-produce UAVs and UAV-guided missiles, and just keep using them, almost one per target. Tens of thousands. Millions.

The evolution of the Middle East is a complicated story with many dimensions. The first time that the United States demonstrated a direct interest in the region was during the Truman Administration (1945-53). Since the mid 1940s the U.S. has had an ongoing strategic national security interest in maintaining stability and influence in the Middle East. At this point any analyst or observer would aver that we are facing a ‘perfect storm’ that threatens our national security. Decades of tireless yet naïve and unrealistic efforts to use force, diplomacy and ‘build coalitions’ have failed to change the dangerous trajectory in Iraq and Syria. The core of this instability is in the ongoing sectarian conflicts in Iraq and Syria. They have resulted so far in the disbanding of borders and the collapse of those two nation’s central governments. In Syria and Iraq the regimes are de facto failed states and no longer exist. At the same time, the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) continues to gain momentum and metastasize along crucial routes in the region. ISIS has not been defeated because no current functioning state has articulated the reasons why it is necessary to stop them. In fact ISIS’s birth is the outcome of the collapse of Iraq and Syria. The crisis threatens other countries such as Saudi Arabia, the Gulf Emirates (Qatar, UAE, Bahrain), Jordan and Lebanon. Now add to that dangerous conflagration Iran’s potential emergence as a regional nuclear power.

It is vital that we engage in a thoughtful and candid re-evaluation of the basic assumptions that have guided our policies and that have resulted in such grave outcomes. This analysis must not be an internal political dispute but rather a straightforward dialogue among experts and policy makers. We need an informed analysis based on intelligence, political feasibility, and a recognition both of the limits of U.S. power and that we need to write-off the ‘sunk costs’ in our current strategy.

Unfortunately and tragically the Sykes–Picot Agreement of 1916 still serves as the basis for our current policies. The secret agreement between France and the United Kingdom was designed as a deal to divide parts of the weakening Ottoman Empire into areas of post-WWI British and French influence. . I conclude that the time has come for a dramatic paradigm shift in our efforts, vision, policy and diplomacy.Iraq needs to end its existence as a state in name only and be divided into three independent entities. The Sunni, Kurdish and Shi’ite regions should gain independence. Iraq's Shi'ites are the majority population in the area from Baghdad to the eastern border with Iran and share with the Sunnis the southeastern part of the region. This state will undoubtedly ally itself with Iran. Not much can be done at this point to prevent this from happening. The Kurds already have a state de facto - Kurdistan in northern Iraq. Today the Kurdish Region of Iraq has six million self-governing people. We should not be intimidated to internationally recognize Kurdistan even in the face of substantial pressure from Turkey, a US ally, and Iran. The area in Iraq that is predominately Sunni is west of Baghdad as is most of Syria. Syria should be divided in a manner that partition would result in uniting their Sunni populations with those who live in the Iraqi west. What will be left of Syria will be divided in the following manner: a Druze state should be created in the southern hills and an Alawite (Shi'a sect) sect in the central western part of the country’s coast. This will be, in fact, the re-creation of the Alawite State of the 1920s and 1930s. The Alawite stronghold in the northwest is based around Latakia. This is most likely where President Assad will escape to when the defense of Damascus will collapse, which is only a matter of time.

UlanBatori wrote:Such nonsense! Leaves the great Caliphates of Dera Windsor Khan, the evil Vaticanabad and Frogistan non-ISIS?

Singha wrote:istanbul suicide bomber seems to be a middle aged woman ? its hard to make out who exactly explodes though...

video https://twitter.com/IraqiSecurity/statu ... 9558252544

Singha wrote:leaked wikileaks email of hillary

Max J. Joseph ‏@DeadmanMax Mar 16
IN FULL
The statement to UK Parliament today by ISIS ex-captive Yezidi Salwa Khalaf Rasho

Max J. Joseph ‏@DeadmanMax Mar 16
The fact that 9,000 armed peshmerga withdrew *just before* ISIS arrived, w/ no notice, is a scandal. Why isn't everyone obsessed with this?

Max J. Joseph ‏@DeadmanMax Mar 16
If they were intent on retreating, they could have staged a defensive evacuation. They could have even left behind weapons. But nothing...?

Max J. Joseph ‏@DeadmanMax Mar 16
Some peshmerga even went so far as shooting Yezidis dead who demanded they stop and defend them, or at least leave them their weapons.

Max J. Joseph ‏@DeadmanMax 1h1 hour ago
For anyone shocked by this statement/role of peshmerga, here is a young Yezidi girl in a refugee camp confirming it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KKIHo-4pNKM …

deejay wrote:This is a major statement by an ex Yezidi woman captured by ISIS from Sinjar. Statement was made in UK Parliament

https://twitter.com/DeadmanMax/status/7 ... 6009803776

Max J. Joseph ‏@DeadmanMax Mar 16
IN FULL
The statement to UK Parliament today by ISIS ex-captive Yezidi Salwa Khalaf Rasho

[img>>]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CdnxEHpWIAAwhLz.jpg[/img]

Max J. Joseph ‏@DeadmanMax Mar 16
The fact that 9,000 armed peshmerga withdrew *just before* ISIS arrived, w/ no notice, is a scandal. Why isn't everyone obsessed with this?

Max J. Joseph ‏@DeadmanMax Mar 16
If they were intent on retreating, they could have staged a defensive evacuation. They could have even left behind weapons. But nothing...?

Max J. Joseph ‏@DeadmanMax Mar 16
Some peshmerga even went so far as shooting Yezidis dead who demanded they stop and defend them, or at least leave them their weapons.

Max J. Joseph ‏@DeadmanMax 1h1 hour ago
For anyone shocked by this statement/role of peshmerga, here is a young Yezidi girl in a refugee camp confirming it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KKIHo-4pNKM …

Hold on a minute. Yes, the Russians are withdrawing some military personnel and hardware—but by and large, it is a withdrawal in name only. Some tactical aircraft have returned to Russia, but we can’t be sure of current levels, as others are newly arriving. Furthermore, we never had precise figures to begin with. It is estimated that there were between three and six thousand Russian troops in Syria before, and what we know now is that the Russians have kept behind enough troops to support their forces logistically at both Khmeimim airbase and the port of Tartus. Most importantly, however, is that Russia’s deployment of anti-access area denial weaponry—the weapons to prevent the establishment of a humanitarian corridor or no-fly zone—have all remained in place. Russian forces that monitor and dominate the electromagnetic spectrum, a decisive Russian advantage in both Syria and the Donbas in Ukraine, have also remained in place. It appears that the most advanced fighter aircraft, SU-35’s and 30’s have too. Finally, their advisors and artillery, the decisive factors on the ground, are still there watching over the Syrian battlefield prepared for what comes next. Five of them were reportedly killed recently by ISIS near Palmyra.The message is clear: The remaining Russian contingent is not only capable of sustaining the war, but reconstituting its campaign upon presidential order. By maintaining its anti-access area denial capability against the West and Turkey, it ensures there will be no effort to reverse the balance of power on the battlefield or alleviate the humanitarian disaster that Russia and its allies have helped perpetuate. It sends a clear message to Turkey and others—as does their recent arming of Kurds with anti-aircraft weaponry—that Russia will continue to ensure that no one can overturn its self-proclaimed victory or undermine its re-claimed clout within the international system.. Russia’s Syrian intervention, contrary to official arguments, was and is not really about Syria. Putin’s lofty rhetoric before the United Nations General Assembly last September—in which he sought a global coalition to fight terrorism—was more about seizing the limelight than really advancing such a coalition. It was a ruse! Putin is now driving home the point that the fight against ISIS in Syria is Obama’s quagmire to deal with.
ery few believe that the current, fragile ceasefire will last—when it falls apart, Russia will play a central role at the negotiating table. As the biggest world player directly involved in the Syrian conflict, the world now recognizes it must deal with Russia in order to achieve peace in Syria. Russia has assumed de facto responsibility for the ceasefire’s success or failure, therefore its challenge is that it must see its terms through. This is highly unlikely.
Russia’s ulterior motive is to prep the political battlefield for the inevitable collapse of the ceasefire and resumption of civil war.Pulling forces out with media hype and ceremonial pomp and circumstance to honor their returning pilots and the families of the deceased is clearly aimed at the Russian domestic audience. It is right to honor those who serve, of course. However, the Russian withdrawal and domestic focus send a message that when the ceasefire fails it is neither the Russians' fault nor responsibility, but the fault of the Western-backed opposition, the United States, and its allies. There are just too many wildcard groups on the ground that are vying for power and land and who do not answer to Russia or to the West (or their respective allies). Russia’s ulterior motive is to prep the political battlefield for the inevitable collapse of the ceasefire and resumption of civil war. Russia must be able to legitimize any actions they deem necessary after that failure occurs. It must be able to show how the West once again failed and portray itself, meanwhile, as the aggrieved party.